This coverage is made possible by grants from the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative and The McKnight Foundation.
Transit agencies forced to tighten belts, even as demand rises

It's a paradox for American cities, including ours. Just as demand for bus and train service soars – and just as big global forces like climate change, energy insecurity and a devastating recession require more public transportation — transit agencies are forced to offer less.
Metro Transit and other Twin Cities providers will come up at least $63 million short over the next two years in trying to operate their fleets of trains and buses. That's a shortfall of 7.5 percent despite a recent surge in riders and a string of fare increases that have raised the price of a basic bus trip by 50 percent since 2000.
There's more irony. Don't expect federal stimulus money to replenish the deficit. The Twin Cities will get $69 million for transit projects, but Washington's help is intended almost solely for capital purchases like new buses and train cars, not for keeping buses and trains running.
All of that leads to the prospect of riders waiting longer at stations, or seeing their routes canceled altogether, or having to pay higher fares at a time of economic hardship. It leads also to the prospect of transit layoffs — a kind of double whammy. People can't get to jobs because their bus driver doesn't have one.
Overflow crowd at hearing
State Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, hosted a subcommittee hearing Wednesday at the Hennepin County Government Center. An overflow crowd lined up to urge the Legislature to prevent another fare increase or cuts in service. That would send a lot of people from "difficulty to disaster," said Celeste Riley of Mendota Heights. Metro Transit last raised fares in 2001, 2003 and 2005.
Advocates for the homeless and disabled testified, as did those who see transit as symbolic of adapting to new times. "It seems like every time we take a step forward, we're forced to take two steps back," said Jennifer Munt of Minnetonka, president of the advocacy group Transit for Livable Communities.
A collapse in auto sales is the primary cause for the budget shortfall. Sales-tax receipts from motor vehicles currently pay for about 29 percent of transit's operations. But those receipts have nose-dived by nearly one-third since 2002.
Officials at the Metropolitan Council hope to fill the gap by shifting some of the federal stimulus money — mainly $30 million aimed at maintenance — to cover operations. Where the council would find another $33 million is uncertain, especially given Gov. Tim Pawlenty's opposition to new revenues.
Met Council to tap reserve funds
Met Council Chairman Peter Bell said Wednesday that he will tap reserve funds to fill part of the hole, and perhaps try to take $8 million over two years from Livable Communities grants — money set aside to promote efficient land development, often near transit stations.
Dibble, who chairs the Senate's Transit Subdivision, said he's wary of draining Livable Communities funds because of their importance in counteracting sprawl. He said, however, that the Legislature would look for ways to "flex" money from capital projects to operations, seeing as how the federal stimulus is geared toward new equipment.
Indeed, the bulk of the federal money would go toward building park-and-ride stations and buying new buses and rail cars for the Hiawatha and North Star lines. The Central Line, not yet "shovel ready," cannot qualify for stimulus help.
Although he's authorized to add 25 cents this year, Bell said he hopes to avoid a fare increase because it would hurt ridership. Bell described the budget situation as serious but not yet dire. Dire comes in 2012 and 2013, when the stimulus is gone and the auto sales-tax revenues are expected to decline further. "That's when I run out of arrows in the quiver," he said. It's clear, he added, that transit operations must find other sources either to replace or supplement the auto sales tax.
McLaughlin Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin warned against poaching sales-tax revenues intended to build new transitways, like the Southwest LRT line and others. "We need to keep our momentum," he said.
Rybak advocates permanent fix
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak reminded the audience that gasoline prices are temporarily low, and that waking up to find rising gas prices and less transit "would be the worst of both worlds." He advocated a "permanent fix" for transit operations, even if it means more revenue.
The crisis in transit operations is part of a national trend, all due to falling local tax receipts. Washington, D.C. plans to cut service and eliminate 900 jobs to help solve a $176 million gap. Chicago was forced to raise fares despite the biggest rider gains in 30 years. New York City, with a $1.2 billion deficit, plans a 23 percent fare hike plus the elimination of two dozen bus routes and two subway lines. Boston, Atlanta and San Francisco are among other systems in trouble. St. Louis plans to idle 165 buses because it can't afford to run them.
Why the federal stimulus bill didn't include operations money is something of a mystery. The operating budgets of car companies were bailed out big time. Polly Trottenberg, director of Building America's Future, an infrastructure advocacy group, said the exclusion was part of "a long-standing U.S. political and policy bias against major urban transit systems." (Small cities and rural areas can use stimulus money for transit operations.)
Twin Cities ridership rose impressively in 2008. Metro Transit delivered nearly 82 million rides, the most in 27 years. Ridership has risen by 17.8 percent over the last four years, although rising unemployment and cheaper gasoline prices began to erode monthly increases starting in December.
Local numbers match national trends. More than 10.3 billion transit trips were taken in 2007, the most in 50 years. The rate continued upward through most of 2008 as gasoline prices rose and car travel declined, although increases slackened late in the year.
Fares support about 30 percent of transit operations in the Twin Cities, a relatively high share of rider support among systems nationally.
More like this
- A dizzying cycle: As drivers shift to transit, prospective fares rise
- County votes on transit tax will produce new generation of mobility
- Latest Met Council transit plan offers major shift in state thinking
- Feds approve route for Duluth-Twin Cities high-speed rail
- In seeking to cut transit, Legislature is out of step with new trends
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
27 comments
-
26 comments
-
24 comments
-
21 comments
-
18 comments
Comments (8)
With gas prices up approximately 19% since 2000, higher state taxes on gasoline, operations cost increases, etc., I'm not sure that a 50% increase in fares in 9 years is excessive. Perhaps a fare increase with the addition of a "sliding scale" discount for the impoverished could help solve the problem without burdening the poor even further.
Since the stimulus money is supposed to SAVE jobs as well as create them, perhaps an amount sufficient to maintain current service levels and employment could be allocated to transit.
Fare increases and reduced service seem to happen every time the governor releases a budget. Many, many people cannot afford to buy cars, or are elderly and/or disabled and cannot drive, and rely solely on public transit.
RALLY Saturday from noon to one in front of the Capitol building to protest the cuts to the Health and Human Services Budget. Probably 99% of Minnesota's most vulnerable residents rely on both HHS programs AND public transit.
I thought the stimulus money was earmarked for specific uses. If local governmental entities start feeling free to "shift" these funds, even the very minimal economic benefits that the stim package offered will quickly be lost as public employee unions gorge themselves.
Because make no doubt, contract mandated salary and benefit increases are what is driving these cost increases.
Also, as Steve correctly pointed out, the federal government is borrowing to buy infrastructure and create government programs which states will be on the hook to find funds to operate.
Surely it hasn't gone unnoticed by the President that states are already deep in debt and struggling to pay for what they have already, so what can he possibly be hoping to accomplish?
If these billions had been targeted to stimulate the economy, ie. private enterprise, not only might the stock market stop it's plunge (over 200 more points lost again today), but we might expect a financial return on our investment.
What is Obama & Co. thinking?
The wages that Swift refers to are not higher than the median wage for truck drivers in the metro area.
Then why does it cost me *less* to ship my products today than it did last year?
It's not only hourly wages to be considered.
For instance, Metro Transit pays 100% of the medical and dental insurance costs for workers; I'll bet my next paycheck that privately employed drivers pay *something* out of their pockets...just like the rest of us.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't think of a single trucking company that is paying pensions to it's retirees.
To suggest that privatly owned enterprise costs are anywhere near the what taxpayers and customers pay for public transportation is laughable.
It costs less now because there is excess shipping capacity. A cargo container that once cost $1400 to lease can now be had for cost.
Fed Ex and some others treat its employess like independent contractors and lets government safety nets bail them out when chips are down.
What does a school bus driver make or a greyhound driver?
So, private enterprise reacts to the marketplace, but the public system is only restricted to the depth of the taxpayers pocket and patience to have it picked.
We agree!
BTW, one of my sons is paying his portion of his college education by working at Fed Ex. He works his ass off, but is paid well for his unskilled labor and they are very flexible in accomodating his school/work schedule.
He's not counting on a Fed Ex pension, though. ;-)
Mr. Swift: I don't think anyone would be surprised about a government service's lack of response to market conditions - I certainly rue that fact as I ride a standing room-only #18 bus nearly every day. If Metro Transit responded immediately to market conditions there would be grade-separated train lines running in eight directions radial to downtown Minneapolis.
Your theory about employee costs driving the Metro Transit shortfall is a novel one, if consistent with your frequent anti-worker attitudes. I wonder, then, why no one in a position to know about the agency's budget has mentioned that explanation? Could it be because it has no basis in fact?
BTW, it's not useful for you to compare your son's part-time, unskilled job to that of a bus driver, which besides being a highly-skilled position, is one on which lives depend.